SPEEC  H 


OF 


Hon.    JOHN    B.    HENDERSON, 


DELIVERED    ]>EFORE 


The  Pike  Ccuinty  Colony  of  St.  Louis,  at  its 
Annual  Dinner  on  Febiuarv  25,  1899,  in 
reply  to  the  toast  "  Our  Nation,  State  and 
County." 


Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  : 

Yonr  toast  is  so  broad  as  to  create  some  confusion  in  select- 
ing the  most  appropriate  line  of  thonght.  Presuming,  how- 
ever, that  a  reference  to  the  political  questions  growing  out  of 
the  late  Spanish  war,  and  to  the  probable  consequences  of 
continued  strife  in  Asia,  may  prove  acceptable,  I  shall  venture 
to  submit  to  you  not  a  speech,  but  a  mere  statement  of  some 
important  facts  connected  with  our  history  as  a  nation,  coupled 
with  references  to  a  few  legal  authorities,  which,  I  hope,  may 
tend  to  elucidate  some  controverted  questions  of  the  day. 

During  the  Revolutionary  War  large  bodies  of  unoccuj)ied 
lands,  some  of  them  extending  out  to  the  Mississippi  river, 
were  claimed  by  some  of  the  States.  New  York  claimed  Ver- 
mont, and  so  did  New  Hampshire ;  Virginia  claimed  what  was 
known  as  the  Northwest  Territory,  lying  between  the  Ohio 
and  Mississippi  rivers,  including  the  lanJ  now  covered  by 
the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Wisconsin,  Michigan,  and 
that  part  of  Minnesota  lying  east  of    the    Mississippi  river. 


E 
7/3 


<\ 


2 

In  addition  to  this,  Virginia  owned  what  is  now  Kentucky: 
North  Carolina  claimed  the  territory  now  covered  by  Ten- 
nessee; Connecticut  claimed  the  western  reserve  in  Ohio,  and 
Massachusetts  claimed  Maine.  Other  States  made  similar 
claims.  As  early  as  1779  some  of  the  States  began  to  insist 
that  it  would  be  inequitable  and  unjust  for  them  to  join  the 
Confederacy  and  ho  compelled  to  defend  this  vast  outlying- 
territory,  unless  the  lauds  should  thereafter  be  owned  and 
enjoyed  by  the  whole  Union.  Thus  it  is  that  we,  as  a  Union 
of  States,  acquired  territory  long  before  the  Constitution  was 
adopted  ;  and  it  is  pertinent  to  our  present  politics  to  ascertain 
the  terms  and  conditions  on  which  it  was  obtained  and  held. 

The  Maryland  instructions  to  its  delegates  in  the  old  Con- 
gress of  the  Confederacy  declared  that  the  territory,  '•  if 
wrested  from  the  common  enemy  by  the  blood  and  treasure  of 
the  thirteen  States,  should  be  considerpd  as  a  common  prop- 
erty, subject  to  be  parcelled  out  by  Congress  into  free,  con- 
venient, and  independent  governments,  in  such  manner  and  at 
such  times  as  the  wisdom  of  that  assembly  shall  hereafter 
direct." 

In  October,  1780,  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  acted 
on  these  suggestions  and  passed  a  resolution  as  follows: 

"■liesolved,  That  the  unappropriated  lauds  that  may  be 
ceded  to  the  United  States  by  any  particular  State,  j^ursuant 
to  the  recommendation  of  Congress  ..  .  .  shall  be  disposed  of 
for  the  common  benefits  of  the  United  States  and  be  settled 
and  formed  into  distinct  republican  States,  which  shall  be- 
come members  of  the  federal  Union,  and  have  the  same  rights 
of  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence  as  the  other  States." 

In  the  celebrated  ordinance  of  1787,  passed  by  the  Congress 
of  the  Confederation,  for  the  government  of  that  large  body 
of  land  which  had  been  ceded  by  Virginia,  almost  the  entire 
Bill  of  Rights,  afterwards  inserted  in  the  Federal  Constitution, 
was  incorporated.  The  second,  third,  and  fourth  articles  of 
that  act  contain  all  the  essential  guaranties  of  human  liberty. 
Slavery  was  expressly'  interdicted,  and  civil  liberty  in  its  purest 


forms  was  secured  by  fundamental  law,  and  the  right  of  ad- 
mission as  States  was  expresslj'  ordained.  And  even  the 
Indian  Avas  not  forgotten.  '•  Their  lands  and  property,"  said 
the  ordinance,  "  shall  never  be  taken  from  them  without  their 
consent,  and  in  their  property,  rights,  and  liberty  they  shall 
never  be  invaded  or  disturbed."' 

Now  if  you  will  bear  in  mind  that,  when  the  Constitution 
was  subsequently  framed,  the  original  thirteen  States  of  the 
Confederacy  already  owned  this  vast  territory  which  had  been 
ceded  to  the  Union  by  the  several  States  for  the  common 
benefit,  you  will  readily  understand  the  necessity  for,  and  the 
meaning  of,  the  following  provision  of  the  Constitution,  to  wit: 

"  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all 
needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other 
property  belonging  to  the  United  States ;  and  nothing  in  this 
Constitution  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  prejudice  an  claims 
of  the  United  States  or  of  any  particular  State." 

The  men  of  my  age,  if  any  now  in  my  hearing,  will  remem- 
ber the  long  and  exciting  discussions  between  1848  and  1860, 
touching  the  meaning  of  this  provision.  In  the  light  of  con- 
temporaneous history,  the  true  construction  of  this  clause  is 
almost  forced  upon  our  understandings.  In  some  cases  agree- 
ments to  transfer  territory  had  been  made  by  some  of  the 
States,  but  the  final  deeds  of  cession  had  .ot  been  executed. 
In  other  words,  the  titles  to  parts  of  the  territory'  were  in  an 
inchoate  state  ;  and  it  was  especially  necessary  to  give  as  little 
offense  as  possible  to  those  States  whose  consent  to  the  Con- 
stitution might  become  necessary  to  its  adoption,  and  to  the 
organization  of  the  new  government  under  it.  Hence  it  was 
essential  to  provide  that  the  Constitution,  if  adopted,  would 
leave  all  these  titles,  whether  of  the  General  Government  or 
of  the  States,  in  statu  quo. 

In  all  cases  where  the  title  had  already  passed  to  the  Con- 
federated States,  the  new  government  would  necessarily  become 
the  owner  of  the  lands.  The  new  government,  under  the 
Constitution  proposed,  being  one  of  strictly  delegated  powers, 


it  became  necessary,  of  course,  to  invest  Congress  witli  author- 
ity to  dispose  of  the  lands.  And  hence  the  provision  author- 
izing Congress  "'  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belong- 
ing to  the  United  States." 

The  clause  clearly  shows  that  the  extent  of  the  rules  and 
regulations  provided  for  respected  not  the  inhabitants,  for 
they  had  been  carefully  secured  in  all  their  rights  in  the  deeds 
of  cession,  but  they  respected  solely  the  sale  and  disposition 
of  the  lauds  as  property  ;  and  this  is  abundantly  proved  by 
the  Avords  "territory  or  other  property  belonging  to  the 
United  States.'"  In  no  view  of  construction  could  the  inhab- 
itants themselves  belong  to  the  United  States ;  and  the  words 
•'other  pio])erty  '"  absolutely  compel  the  conclusion  that  the 
word  "territory  "  was  used  in  the  context  as  one  of  the  species 
of  property  belonging  to  the  Union.  The  old  Confederacy 
owned  a  number  of  forts,  sorue  of  which  w-ere  still  held  by 
Great  Britain  under  the  treaty  of  peace  concluded  in  1783,  be- 
cause of  our  inability,  so  far,  to  make  restitution  for  the 
numerous  confiscations  made  upon  the  property  of  Tories  and 
British  subjects  dining  the  Revolutionary  War,  which  restitu- 
tion had  been  pledged  l)y  the  stipulations  of  that  treaty. 

To  this  (juestion  of  ownership  of  territory  under  com- 
pleted and  contemplated  grants  by  States,  during  the  ex- 
istence of  the  old  Confederacy,  may  be  attributed  the  in- 
corporation of  several  other  provisions  of  the  Constitution, 
notably  the  one  declaring  that  "  new  States  may  be  admitted 
by  the  Congress  into  this  Union."  The  deeds  of  cession  had 
themselves  specially  provided  for  such  admission  of  States, 
and  this  provision  was  essential  to  enable  the  new  government 
to  carry  out  the  obligations  of  the  previous  government.  Con- 
temporaneous history  makes  clear  also  the  remainder  of  this 
latter  section.  At  that  time  the  present  State  of  Tennessee, 
under  the  name  of  "  Franklin,''  was  preparing  to  secede  from 
North  Carolina,  of  which  it  was  a  part,  and  the  following  ad- 
ditional provisions  were  inserted  :  "  But  no  new  State  shall  be 
formed  or  erected  within  the  iurisdiction  of  any  other  State  ; 


nor  auy  State  formed  by  the  juuction  of  two  or  more  States  or 
parts  of  States  without  the  consent  of  the  legislatures  of  the 
States  concerned,  as  well  as  of  the  Congress." 

These  threatened  troubles  were  afterwards  adjusted  by  con- 
sent of  the  parties  interested,  and  by  the  subsequent  admis- 
sion into  the  Union  of  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  and  Vermont. 

Another  clause  was  thought  to  be  necessary  because  of 
provisions,  in  the  deeds  of  cession,  requiring  that  these  terri- 
tories should  be  divided  into  convenient  boundaries  and  ad- 
mitted as  States  into  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  thirteen  States,  whenever  they  had,  respectively,  sixty 
thousand  inhabitants ;  provided  that  their  constitutions  and 
government  should  be  republican  in  form  ;  hence  came  the 
4:th  section  of  the  -ith  article  of  the  Constitution,  providing  that 
"  the  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in  this 
Union  a  republican  form  of  government.'" 

It  may  be  safely  asserted,  I  think,  that  all  these  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  which  I  have  quoted  were  framed  to  meet 
the  exigencies  named — conditions  already  existing  when  the 
Constitution  was  framed. 

And  I  think  it  may  also  be  safely  affirmed  that  further  ac- 
quisitions of  territory,  either  by  purchase  or  by  conquest,  bad 
not  then  occurred  to  American  statesmen.  James  Madison, 
who  has  been  properly  called  the  father  of  the  Constitution, 
was  Secretary  of  State  in  1803,  when  Mr.  Jefferson  concluded 
the  purchase  of  the  Louisiana  territory  from  France ;  and  both 
he  and  Mr.  Jefferson  are  on  record  as  totally  denying  the 
power  to  have  made  that  treaty,  or  for  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  under  any  circumstances,  to  acquire  and  hold 
territory,  except  under  the  constitutional  authority  to  admit 
States  upon  the  voluntary  consent  of  their  inhabitants. 

It  was  the  opinion  of  John  Adams,  and  his  son  John  Quincy 
Adams,  and  equally  the  opinion  of  Daniel  Webster. 

This  purchase  was  made  under  a  great  emergency,  and  to  re- 
move the  imminent  danger  of  a  secession  of  the  Southwestern 
States,  lying  on  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers,  from  the  Union. 

Mr.  Jefferson  likened  his  action  to  that  of  a  guardian  invest- 


6 

ing-  the  funds  of  Lis  ward,  and  afterwards  seeking  bis  conseut 
to  the  investment  to  give  it  vahdity.  He  afterwards  drafted 
an  amendment  to  the  Coustitution  in  the  hope  to  legalize  this 
infraction  and  to  avoid  in  the  future  the  dangers  of  the  prec- 
edent. 

But  I  now  distinctly  wai\e  all  questions  of  authority  for 
the  acquisition  of  territory,  and  I  am  willing  to  accept  the 
opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  interpreting  the  Florida 
treaty  of  1819,  in  the  case  of  American  Insurance  Co.  v.  Canter, 
and  reported  in  1  Peters,  in  which  he  placed  the  power  to 
acquire  territory  on  the  treaty-making  clause  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

But  while  I  accept  this  and  subsequent  decisions  of  that 
great  court,  I  accept  them  in  the  precise  terms  in  which  they 
have  been  rendered.  I  accept  them  because  the  acquisition 
of  territory  ceases  to  be  dangerous  when  the  people  inhabit- 
ing them  are  to  be  clothed  by  the  Constitution  with  the  full 
panoply  of  American  freedom. 

All  Treaties  Acquiring  Territory  Historically  Considered. 

I  now  proceed  to  show  you  the  provisions  of  former 
treaties  under  which  territory  has  been  acquired  b}'^  the  United 
States,  and  then  briefly  to  examine  the  judicial  interpreta- 
tions of  those  treaues;  and,  after  doing-  so,  I  shall  ask  you  to 
consider  the  difference  between  them  and  the  late  Spanish 
treaty. 

From  the  treaty  with  France,  known  as  the  Louisiana  treaty, 
concluded  April  30,  1803,  I  copy  the  following  article,  num- 
bered 3,  in  the  following  words  : 

"  The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  shall  be  incorporated 
in  the  Union  of  the  United  States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible, according  to  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights,  advantages,  and  immunities  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States  ;  and,  in  the  meantime,  they  shall 
be  maintained  and  protected  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  liberty, 
property,  and  the  religion  which  they  profess." 


From  the  treaty  with  Spain,  kuown  as  the  Florida  Purchase, 
concluded  February  22,  1819,  ratified  February  22,  1821,  I 
read  Article  6 : 

'•  The  inhabitants  of  tlie  territories  which  His  Catholic 
Majt-sty  cedes  to  the  United  States,  b}-  this  treaty,  shall  be 
incorporated  in  the  Union  of  the  United  States,  as  soon  as  may 
be  consistent  with  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
and  admitted  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  privileges,  rights, 
and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States." 

From  the  treaty  with  Mexico,  concluded  February  2,  1848, 
I  shall  omit  Articles  8  and  9,  and  read  from  the  protocol  of 
May  26,  1848,  by  which  the  9th  Article  was  striken  out  and  the 
Gth  Article  of  the  Louisiana  treaty  was  substituted,  in  the 
following  language  : 

'•  1st.  The  American  Government  b}'  suppressing  the  9th 
Article  of  the  Treat}^  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo  and  substituting 
the  3d  Article  of  the  Treaty  of  Louisiana  did  not  intend  to 
diminish  in  any  way  what  was  agreed  upon  by  the  aforesaid 
Article  9th  in  favor  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  territories 
ceded  by  Mexico.  Its  understanding  is,  that  all  of  that  agree- 
ment is  contained  in  the  3d  Article  of  the  Treaty  of  Louisiana. 
In  consecjuence,  all  the  privileges  and  gurau tees,  civil,  political, 
and  religious,  which  would  have  been  possessed  by  the  in- 
habitants of  the  ceded  territories,  if  the  9th  Article  of  the 
treaty  had  been  retained,  will  be  enjoyed  by  them,  without  any 
difference,  under  the  article  which  has  been  substituted." 

The  treaty  with  Mexico,  concluded  December  30,  1854,  pro- 
claimed June  30,  1854,  known  as  the  Gadsden  Purchase,  pro- 
vides as  follows : 

"Article  V. 

'"All  the  provisions  of  the  eighth  and  ninth,  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  Articles  of  the  Treaty  of  Guadaluj^e  Hidalgo,  shall 
apply  to  the  territory  ceded  by  the  Mexican  Republic  in  the 
first  Article  of  the  present  treaty,  and  to  all  the  rights  of  per- 
sons and  property,  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  within  the  same, 
as  fully  and  as  effectually  as  if  the  said  articles  were  herein 
aoain  recited  and  set  forth." 


I  come  IK)  to  tlie  trfjity  with  Russia  for  the  purchase  of 
Alaska,  conciiuled  March  30,  18G7,  ratitied  and  proclaimed 
June  20,  1867. 

"Akticle  III. 

"The  inhabitauts  of  the  ceded  territory.  accordiu<:;-  to  their 
choice,  reserving-  their  natural  :dleyiance,  may  return  to  Russia 
within  three  vears  :  but  if  they  piv'fer  to  remain  in  the  ceded 
territory,  they,  with  the  exception  of  uncivilized  native  tribes, 
shall  have  the  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and 
shall  '  maintaiu'd  and  protected  in  the  free  enjoyment  of 
their  liberty,  property,  and  religion.  The  uncivilized  tribes 
will  be  subject  to  such  laws  and  regulations  as  the  United 
States  may,  from  time  to  time,  adopt  in  regard  to  aboriginal 
tribes  of  that  country.'' 

In  order  to  mark  with  emphasis  the  contrast  between  the 
stipulations  of  all  these  several  treaties  and  those  of  the  late 
treaty  with  Spain  of  December  10,  18'J8,  I  shall  now  read  the 
following  clauses  from  the  latter  treaty,  with  the  purpose, 
however,  of  referring  to  them  again : 

••  Akt.  10.  The  civil  rights  and  political  status  of  the  native 
inhabitants  of  the  territories  hereby  ceded  t(j  the  United  States 
shall  be  determined  by  the  Congress  ;"  and  again — 

"  The  inhabitants  of  the  territories  over  whicli  Spain  relin- 
quishes, or  cedes  her  sovereignty,  shall  be  secured  in  the  free 
exercise  of  their  religion.'" 

Of  course,  there  have  been  as  yet  no  judicial  determinations 
touching  the  scope  and  meaning  of  tJiese  clauses  in  the  Spanish 
treaty.  But  it  will  be  particularly  observed  by  you  that,  so 
far  as  the  treaty  itself  is  concerned,  no  rights,  either  civil  or 
political,  except  religious  freedom,  are  attempted  to  be  guaran- 
teed or  assured  to  the  inhabitants. 

Why  this  marked  distinction  is  made  must  be  judged  by 
each  of  you  as  future  history  may  develop. 

As  one  of  the  consequences,  however,  of  that  distinction,  we 
now  have  a  cruel,  bloody — I  fear,  a  very  unfortuimte — war  in 
the  Philippine  Islands. 


But  I  will  postpone  further  reference  to  the  late  treaty  until 
I  shall  have  shown  from  judicial  interpretation,  and  other 
authority,  the  rights  of  inhabitants  and  citizens  of  ceded  terri- 
tories under  all  those  treaties  concluded  prior  to  the  late 
Spanish  treaty. 

And  that  brings  me  to  iutpiire  in  Ihnbie. 

Can  Oui;  Goverxmext  in  its   Present    Form  Hold  and  Gov- 
ern Territory  as  a  Colonial  Possession? 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  Dred  Scott 
case,  said :  'vi  power  therefore  in  the  General  Government  to 
obtain  and  hold  colonies  and  dependent  territories,  over  which 
they  (Congress)  might  legislate  without  restriction,  would  be 
inconsistent  with  its  own  existence  in  its  present  form."' 

In  Murphy  v.  Fvamsay,  114  U.  S.,  it  is  said : 

'•The  power  of  Congress  over  the  Territories  is  Hmited  by 
the  obvious  purposes  for  which  it  was  conferred,  and  those 
purposes  are  satisfied  by  measures  which  prepare  the  people 
of  the  Territories  to  become  States  in  the  Union."' 

Justice  McLean,  in  his  separate  opinion  in  the  Dred  Scott 
case,  said : 

"  In  organizing  the  government  of  a  territory,  Congress  is 
limited  to  means  appropriate  to  the  attainment  of  the  consti- 
tutional object.  No  powers  can  be  exercised  which  are  pro- 
hibited by  the  Constitution,  or  which  are  contrary  to  its  spint ; 
so  that,  whether  the  object  may  be  the  protection  of  .he 
persons  and  property  of  purchasers  of  the  public  lands  or  of 
communities  who  have  been  annexed  to  the  tlnion  by  conquest 
or  purchase,  they  are  initiatory  to  the  establishment  of  State 
o-overnments,  and  no  more  power  can  be  claimed  or  exercised 
than  is  necessary  to  the  attainment  of  the  end.  This  is  the 
limitation  of  all  the  federal  powers." 

In  Shively  v.  Bowlby,  152  U.  S.,  the  Supreme  Court  said  : 

"The  territories  acquired  by  Congress,  whether  by  deed  of 
cession  from  the  original  States,  or  by  treaty  with  a  foreign 


10 

country,  are  held  with  the  object,  as  soon  as  their  population 
and  condition  justify  it,  of  being  admitted  into  the  Union  as 
States,  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in  all 
respects." 

In  the  same  case  is  the  following  language  : 

'•  Upon  the  acquisition  of  a  territory  by  the  United  States, 
whether  b}'  cession  from  one  of  the  States  or  by  treaty  with  a 
foreign  country,  or  b}' discovery  and  settlement,  the  same  title 
and  dominion  passed  to  the  United  States  tor  the  benefit  of 
the  whole  people,  and  in  trust  for  the  several  States,  to  be 
ultimately  created  out  of  the  territory.'" 

Judge  Cooley,  in  his  work  on  Constitutional  Law,  says: 

"  It  could  never  have  been  understood  that  any  territoiw 
which  by  purchase,  cession  or  conquest,  should  at  any  time 
come  under  the  control  of  tbe  United  States,  should  perma- 
nently be  held  in  a  territorial  condition,  and  the  neAv  States 
which  have  been  formed  of  territory  acquired  by  treaty  must 
be  supposed  to  have  been  received  into  the  Union  in  strict 
compliance  with  the  Constitution." 

Continuing,  he  says  : 

"•And  when  territor}'  is  acquired,  the  right  to  suffer  States 
to  be  formed  tlierefrom  and  to  receive  them  into  the  Union 
must  follow  of  course,  not  onlj'  because  the  Constitution  con- 
fers the  power  to  admit  new  States  without  restriction,  but 
because  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  institutions  founded  on 
the  fundamental  idea  of  self-government  that  the  Federal 
Government  should  retain  territory  under  its  imperial  rule 
and  deny  the  people  the  customary  local  institutions."' 

The  same  author,  iu  contrasting  the  territorial  system  of 
the  United  States  from  the  colonial  system  of  Great  Britain, 
says  : 

"  There  are  differences  which  are  important  and,  indeed, 
vital.  The  first  of  these  is  that  the  territorial  condition  is 
understood  under  the  Constitution  to  be  merely  temporary 
and  pre})arato]-y  :  and    the    peo])le  of  the  territories,  while  it 


11 

coutiuues.  are  assured  of  the  right  to  create  and  estabUsh 
State  institutions  for  themselves  as  soon  as  the  population 
shall  be  sufficient  and  the  local  conditions  suitable;  while  the 
British  colonial  system  contained  no  provision  or  assurances 
of  au}'  but  a  dependent  government  indetinitely." 

Daniel  Webster,  the  great  expounder  of  the  Constitution, 
said  : 

•'  Arbitrary  governments  may  have  territories  and  distant 
possessions  because  arbitrary  governments  may  rule  them  by 
difterent  laws  and  different  systems.  Kussia  may  rule  m  the 
Ukrane  and  the  provinces  of  the  Caucasus  and  Kamtschatka 
by  different  codes,  ordinances  or  ukases.  We  can  do  no  such 
thing.      They  nmst  he  of  us,  ^)ar«  of  us,  or  else  strangers" 

I  can  confidently  assert  that  up  to  date  judicial  authority 
and  the  practice  of  all  the  political  departments  of  the  Govern- 
ment establish  the  fact  that — 

THE  TERM,  UNITED  STATES,  COVERS  ALL  THE 
TERRITORY  OVER  WHICH  THE  NATIONAL  SOVER- 
EIGNTY EXTENDS. 

It  therefore  follows  that,  on  the  ratification  of  the  pending 
treaty  by  the  Spanish  Cortez,  Puerto  Rico  and  the  Philippine 
Islands  will  become  a  part  of  the  United  States  ;  and  their  in- 
habitants must  at  once  become  entitled  to  all  the  guarantees- 
of  civil  liberty  contained  in  the  Federal  Constitution. 

In  Pomeroy's  Constitutional  Law  it  is  said : 

"  But  is  Cono-ress  absolute  over  these  districts  or  territories? 
Is  it  like  the  British  Parliament,  bound  by  no  limitations  save 
those  which  are  self-imposed  ?  This  cannot  be  ;  nor  does  the 
lan'Tuacre  of  the  Constitution  require  a  construction  so  much 
opp'osed  to  all  our  ideas  of  civil  polity.  The  safeguards  of  in- 
dividual rights— those  clauses  which  preserve  the  lives,  liberty, 
and  property  of  the  citizen  from  the  encroachments  of  arbitrary 
power— must  apply  as  well  to  that  legislation  of  Congress 
which  is  concerned  exclusively  with  the  District  of  Columbia, 
or  with  the  Territories,  as  to  that  which  is  concerned  with  the 
States.     The  reasoning  which  leads  to  this  conclusion  is  irre- 


12 

sistiblo.  A  liill  of  rights  is  certainlj'  uo  less  important  for  the 
District  of  Columbia  and  for  the  Teiritories  than  for  that  por- 
tion of  the  nation  which  is  org-auized  into  States.  If  it  were 
thought  necessary-  that  Congress  should  be  hedged  around  with 
restrictions  while  it  is  legislating  for  the  inhabitants  of  States, 
who  may  be  partially  protected  by  their  local  governments, 
how  much  more  necessary  tliat  the  same  body  should  be  re- 
strained while  legislating  for  the  inhabitants  of  those  districts 
and  Territories  over  which  it  has  an  exclusive  control.  The 
mandatory  clauses  of  the  first  eight  amendments  are  clothed  in 
the  most  general  language,  and  they  make  no  exceptions  ;  they 
apply  to  Cougress  in  the  exercise  of  all  its  functions  ;  in  gen- 
eral t<  'ms  they  cover  its  legislation  for  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia mt(f  for  the  Territories^  as  well  as  for  the  States.  These 
clauses  must,  therefore,  be  compulsive  upon  Congress  when  it 
makes  laws  for  the  District  or  for  the  Territories,  unless  the 
general  language  in  which  the}'  are  framed  is  modified  by  the 
particular  language  of  the  provisions  which  especially  relate  to 
the  District  and  l(^  .j.j  Territories.  There  is  evident!}'  noth- 
ing contradictory  between  these  provisions  and  the  general 
restrictions  of  the  Bill  of  Rights." 

Continuing  on  the  same  subject,  the  author  says  : 

"  Furthermore,  as  the  clauses  in  question  aie  mandatory  and 
pciemptory  in  their  nature,  and  directed  at  once  to  each  branch 
ol  the  Government,  they  require  no  statute  of  Cougress,  de- 
cision of  judge,  or  act  of  President  to  execute  them  and  give 
them  binding  efficacy.  They  execute  themseloes  witJiout  the 
aid  of  an  inferior  laio.  Any  proceeding  of  the  GovernnioU 
ill  derogation  of  their  command  would  he  void;  any  proceed- 
ing declaratory  would  be  useless.'''' 

In  Loughborough  v.  Blake,  5  Wheaton,  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  by  Marshall,  C.  J.,  said  : 

"  The  power,  then,  to  lay  and  collect  duties,  imposts,  and 
excises  may  be  exercised,  and  must  be  exercised,  throughout 
the  United  States.  Does  this  term  designate  the  whole  or  any 
particular  portion  of  the  American  empire?  Certainly  this 
question  can  admit  of  but  one  answer.  It  is  the  name  given 
to  our  great  Republic,  which  is  composed  of  States  and  Terri- 
tories. The  District  of  Columbia  or  the  territory  west  of  the 
Missouri  is  not  less  within  the  United  States  than  Maryland 


13 

or  Peuusylvania,  and  it  is  not  less  necessary,  on  the  principles 
of  our  Constitution,  that  uniformity  in  the  imposition  of  im- 
jjosts,  duties,  and  excises  should  be  observed  in  the  one  than 
the  other.  Since,  then,  the  power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes, 
which  includes  direct  taxes,  is  obviously  co  extensive  with  the 
power  to  lay  and  collect  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,  and  since 
the  latter  extends  throughout  the  United  States,  it  follows 
that  the  power  to  impose  direct  taxes  also  extends  throughout 
the  United  States."" 

In  U.  S.  V.  More.  3  Cranch,  it  is  said  : 

'•  The  Constitution  was  made  for  the  benefit  of  ever}'  citizen 
of  the  United  States,  a/u?  t/tere  /s  no  citizen,  whatever  his  con- 
dition, or  wherever  he  mat/  he,  loithin.  the  territory  of  the 
United  States,  who  has  not  a  right  to  its  2^rotection.''' 

In  the  Dred  Scott  case,  the  Supreme  Court  said : 

"It  (the  Government)  enters  upon  territorj'  with  its  powers 
over  the  citizen  strictly  defined  and  limited  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, from  which  it  derives  its  own  existence,  and  by  virtue  of 
which  alone  it  continues  to  exist  and  act  as  a  government  and 
sovereignty.  It  has  no  power  of  any  kind  beyond  it,  and  it 
cannot,  when  it  enters  a  territory  of  the  United  States,  put  oft' 
its  character  and  assume  discretionary  or  despotic  powers 
which  the  Constitution  has  denied  to  it.  It  cannot  create  for 
itself  a  new  character  separated  fi'om  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  and  the  duties  it  owes  them  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Constitution.  The  territory  being  part  of  the  United  States, 
the  Government  and  the  citizen  both  enter  it  under  the  au- 
thoritj'  of  the  Constitution,  with  their  respective  rights  defined 
and  marked  out,  and  the  federal  Government  can.  exercise  no 
poioer  beyond  what  that  instrument  confers,  nor  lawfully  deny 
any  right  which  it  has  reserved.'''' 

In  Murphy  a.  Ramsey,  114  U.  S  ,  it  is  said  : 

"The  personal  and  civil  rights  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
territories  are  secured  to  them  as  to  other  citizens  by  the 
principles  of  constitutional  liberty  which  restrain  all  the 
agencies  of  government,  State  and  national." 

The  same  doctrine  is  repeated  iu  Reynolds  v.  U.  S.,  98  U.S.; 


14 

in  Spiiugville  ?'.  Thomas.  IIG  U.  S.;  in  American  Publishing- 
Co.  V.  Fisher,  IGG  U.  S.:  in  Thompson  v.  Utah,  170  U.  S. 

In  Callan  v.  Wilson,  127  U.  S.,  the  Supreme  Court  held  the 
following-  language  respecting  a  case  arising  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  where  Congress  is  invested  with  the  power  of  ex- 
clusive legislation  : 

■'  There  is  nothing  in  the  history  of  the  Constitution  or  of 
the  original  amendments  to  justif_y  the  assertion  that  the 
peo])le  of  the  District  may  be  lawfully  deprived  of  the  benefit 
of  any  of  the  constitutional  guarantees  of  life,  liberty,  and 
property.  .  .  .  We  cannot  think  that  the  people  of  this  Dis- 
trict have  in  that  regard  less  rights  than  those  accorded  to 
the  people  of  the  Territories  of  the  United  States."" 

I  return  now  for  a  moment  to  the  late  Spanish  treaty. 
And  I  think  I  am  justified  in  expressing  surprise  that,  in  franj- 
ing  its  provisions,  our  commissioners  should  have  departed 
from  the  es  ablislied  precedents  of  over  one  hundred  3'ears. 
In  all  previous  cases  the  treaties,  in  e.xpress  words,  recognized 
the  inhabitants  as  a  part  of  the  American  people,  and  clothed 
them  with  all  the  rights  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  Thejf  were  assured  of  protection  in  life,  liberty,  and 
property  and  promised  future  admission  as  States  on  an  equal 
footing  with  those  already  in  the  Union. 

The  population  of  former  acquisitions,  thus  covered  by  the 
shield  of  the  Constitution,  contained  French,  Spanish,  Creoles, 
Mexi  jans,  Russians,  and  Indians.  In  the  declaration  of  war 
last  April  the  first  utterance  was  that  the  Cubans  "  are  and  of 
right  ought  to  be  free  and  independent."  Admiral  Dewey,  as 
early  as  June  last,  and  again  in  August  thereafter,  assured  our 
Government  that  the  Philippines  were  better  morally  and 
intellectually,  and  more  capable  of  self-government,  than  the 
Cubans,  and  that  he  knew  both  races  well. 

Both  Cuba  and  the  Philippines  had  declared  their  inde- 
pendence and  established  revolutionary  governments.  Both 
were  struggling  for  their  liberties;  and  both  had  i-eceived 
encouragement  and  arms  from  our  Government.  Both  freely 
>lied  their  blood   in   aid   of  the  United  States  against  Spain, 


15 

and  both  were  promised  liberty  and  independence  by  public 
otlicials  of  oar  country. 

Why,  then,  were  Cuba  and  the  Philippine  Islands  placed  on 
a  diiierent  footing  .- 

Our  declared  object  in  the  Spanish  war  was  to  secure  the 
freedom  and  independence  of  the  Cubans.  Our  declared  pur- 
pose in  the  Philippines  is  to  subject  their  inhabitants  to  the 
unlimited  control  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  A 
legisUtive  assembly  representing  the  people  is  now  in  session 
in  Cub;i.  The  members  of  the  revolutionary  government, 
organized  to  secure  the  independence  of  the  Philippines,  are 
being  shot  to  death  by  American  soldiers  for  no  other  crime 
than  that  committed  by  every  soldier  who  followed  our  flag 
to  establish  freedom  and  self-government  in  the  thirteen  Amer- 
ican colonies.  I  do  not  know  who  declared  this  Philippine 
war.  Our  Constitution  commits  to  Congress  the  sole  power 
of  declaring  war  in  all  cases.  Its  records  are  painfully  silent 
on  this  subject.  And  yet  the  fact  of  war  is  evidenced  by  the 
blood  and  death  of  thousands  who  but  recently  stood  with  us 
as  allies  in  the  Spanish  war.  A  few  short  months  ago  we 
waged  war  to  free  the  struggling  people  of  Cuba,  and  to  estab- 
lish their  right  to  govern  themselves.  We  now  wage  war  to 
establish  for  ourselves,  in  the  Philippines,  the  same  imperial 
right  to  govern  others  which  we  denied  to  Spain  in  Cuba.  A 
war  for  self-government  in  half  a  year  has  degenerated  into  a 
total  denial  of  our  own  declaration  of  independence. 

If  Madame  Koland  yet  lived  she  might  again  exclaim  upon 
the  crimes  committed  in  the  sacred  name  of  liberty. 

It  is  a  wicked  plea  to  say  that  the  Filipinos  are  incapable 
of  self  government.  Such  has  ever  been  the  plea  of  the  master 
of  the  slave  and  of  the  imperial  oppressor  of  weaker  nations. 

Mr.  Lincoln  well  said  that  God  never  made  a  man  good 
enough  to  be  owner  of  a  slave.  It  is  equally  true  that  7nan 
has  never  established  a  nation  good  and  just  enough  to  govern 
another  people  without  their  consent. 

But  is  it  true  that  the  Cubans  are  better  qualified  for  self- 
govv  rnment  than  the  people  of  Luzon,  whose  aspirations  for 


16 

self-government  are  suppressed  by  the  strong  hands  of  a  peo- 
yAe  who  constantly  boast  their  sympathy  with  the  victims  of 
oppression  and  wrong-  everywhere  ? 

It  uoAv  appears  that  Admiral  Dewey  forwarded  to  the  Navy 
Department,  a  short  time  after  taking  Cavite,  a  dispatch,  as 
follows:  '"These  ])eople  are  far  superior  in  their  intelligence 
and  more  capable  of  self-goveriimeut  than  the  natives  of  Cuba, 
and  I  aui  familiar  with  both  races.'" 

On  August  "iDth  he  again  telegraphed  from  Manila,  as 
follows  : 

'••  The  population  of  Luzon  is  reported  to  be  something  over 
3,000,000,  mostly  natives.  These  are  gentle,  docile,  and,  under 
just  laws  and  with  the  benefits  of  popular  education,  would 
make  good  citizens."  In  this  he  refers  to  the  dispatch  of  June 
20th,  already  (juoted,  in  regard  to  their  capacity  for  self-gov- 
ernment, and  says  :  "Further  intercourse  with  them  has  con- 
firmed me  in  this  opinion." 

It  is  now  in  evidence  that,  in  June  last,  the  exiled  Philippines 
at  Singapore  delivered  au  address  to  our  consul,  Mr.  Pratt,  in 
that  city,  in  the  following  language  : 

"  SiK  :  The  Philippine  colony  resident  in  this  port,  com- 
posed of  representatives  of  all  social  classes,  have  come  to 
present  their  respects  to  yon  as  the  legitimate  representative 
of  the  great  and  powerful  American  llepublic,  in  order  to  ex- 
press our  eternal  gratitude  for  the  moral  and  material  pro- 
tection extended  by  Admiral  Dewey  to  our  trusted  leader, 
General  Emilio  Aguinaldo,  who  has  been  driven  to  take  up 
arms  in  the  name  of  8,000,000  Filipinos,  in  defence  of  those 
very  principles  of  justice  and  liberty  of  which  j'our  country  is 
the  foremost  champion.  Our  countrymen  at  home,  beloved 
native  land,  hope  that  the  United  States,  your  nation,  persever- 
ing in  its  humane  policy,  will  etificaciously  second  the  program 
arranged  between  you,  sir,  and  General  Aguinaldo  in  this  port 
of  Singapore,  and  secure  to  us  our  independence  under  the 
protection  of  the  United  States.  Our  warmest  thanks  are 
especially  due  to  you,  sir,  personally,  for  having  been  the  first 
to  cultivate  relations  with  General  Aguinaldo,  and  arrange  for 
co-operation  with  Admiral  Dewey,  thus  supporting  our  aspira- 
tions, which  time  and  subsequent  actions  have  developed  and 


17 

caused  to  meet  with  the  apphiuse  and  ap})rob;itioD  of  your 
uatiou.  Fiually,  we  request  you  to  convey  to  your  ilhistrious 
President  and  the  American  people,  and  to  Admiral  Dewey, 
our  sentiments  of  sincere  gratitude,  and  our  most  fervent  wishes 
for  their  prosperity."' 

Mr.  Piatt's  reply  is  as  follows : 

'•Now  we  have  news  of  the  brilliant  achievements  of  your 
own  distinguished  leader.  General  Aguinaldo,  co-operating  on 
land  with  the  Americans  at  sea.  .  .  .  When,  six  weeks  ago,  I 
learned  that  Gen.  Aguinaldo  had  arrived  incognito  in  Sing- 
agore,  I  immediately  sought  him  out.  An  hour's  interview 
convinced  me  he  was  the  man  for  the  occasion,  and  having 
communicated  with  Admiral  Dewey,  I,  accordingly,  arranged 
for  him  to  join  the  latter,  which  he  did,  at  Cavite.  I  am 
thankful  to  have  been  the  means,  the  merely  accidental  means, 
of  bringing  about  the  arrangement  between  General  Aguinaldo 
and  Admiral  Dewey  which  has  resulted  so  happily.  I  can 
only  hope  that  the  eventual  outcome  will  be  all  that  can  be 
desired  for  the  happin'^'ss  and  welfare  of  the  Filipinos.'" 

In  presenting  an  American  flag  to  the  insurgents,  Mr.  Pratt 
said : 

"  T.iis  flag  was  borne  in  battle,  and  is  the  emblem  of  that 
very  liberty  that  you  are  seeking  to  attain." 

I  copy  also  from  a  speech  of  Hon.  Geo.  Gray,  U.  S.  Senator 
from  Delaware,  and  one  of  our  commissioners  to  make  the 
ti-eaty  of  peace  at  Paris  with  Spain.  This  speech  was  made 
before  the  Board  of  Trade  at  Wilmington,  where  he  resides, 
as  follows: 

"Commodore  Dewey  had  brought  Aguinaldo  back  to  Luzon, 
and  by  his  (Aguiualdo's)  leadership  ;>nd  the  encouragement  of 
the  American  fleet,  the  embers  of  the  insurrection,  which  had 
died  out,  were  rekindled  into  a  flame,  and  the  assistance  of 
the  insurgent  forces  was  gladly  availed  of  by  our  commodore. 
It  then  came  to  be  thought  that  in  our  settlement  with  Spain 
we  could  not  honorabl}-  leave  the  inhabitants  of  these  islands 
to  the  tender  mercies  of  their  S^janish  oppressors  and  hand 
over  brave  men,  who  had   assisted   our  fleet  and  army  in  the 


18 

Lour  of  ueed,  to  Spanisli   dungeons,  or    to    the   tiriiig   line  of 
Spanish  execution.'' 

It  is  admitted,  upon  the  evidence  preserved  by  the  commis- 
sioners and  now  partly  published,  that  on  the  28d  of  June  last 
Aguinaldo  published  at  Cavite,  under  the  eyes  of  Admiral 
Dewe}',  his  proclamation  as  President  of  the  Philippines,  de- 
claring the  absolute  independence  of  the  islands  and  estab- 
lishing a  revolutionary  goverumeut  pledged  to  the  building- 
up  of  a  great  republic  in  the  islands  based  on  the  consent  of 
the  governed. 

From  that  proclamation  I  copy  the  following : 

"It  (the  new  government)  struggles  for  its  independence  in 
the  firm  belief  that  the  time  has  arrived  m  which  it  can  and  ought 
to  govern  itself.  There  has  been  established  a  levolutionary 
government  under  wise  and  just  laws,  suited  to  the  abnormal 
circumstances  through  which  it  is  passing,  and  which  in 
proper  time  will  prepare  it  for  a  true  republic."  .  .  .  ''This 
people  has  resources  and  energy  sufficient  to  liberate  them- 
selves from  the  ruin  and  extinction  into  which  the  Spanish 
government  has  plunged  it,  and  to  claim  a  modest  but  worthy 
place  in  the  concert  of  free  nations." 

After  the  organization  of  this  government,  it  is  known  and 
admitted  that  the  troops  of  Aguinaldo  were  armed  by  Admiral 
Dcwe}',  and  that  the  Filijiinos  assisted  us  in  the  land  battles 
at  Manila  under  circumstances  tantamount  to  a  positive  under- 
standing that  the  islands  should  be  free  and  independent. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  we  have  been  misled  as  to  the  inten- 
tions of  the  revolutionarj'^  government,  or  that  we  ever  inti- 
mated to  the  people  that  we  would  interfere  with  their  pur- 
pose to  establish  an  independent  government.  To  prove  Ihis 
I  might  exhibit  to  you  numberless  facts,  but  the  substance  of 
all  is  contained  in  the  official  report  of  Major  Bell  made  to 
General  Merritt  on  August  29,  1898,  while  in  command  at 
Manila,  and  by  him  placed  in  the  hands  of  our  commissioners 
at  Paris.     It  is  as  follows : 

"  There  is  not  a  particle  of  doubt  but  that  Aguinaldo  and  his 


19 

leaders  will  resist  auy  attempt  of  auv  government  to  reorganize 
a  colonial  government  here.  Thev  are  esjjecially  bitter  toward 
the  Spaniards,  but  equally  determined  not  to  submit  any 
longer  to  being  a  colony  of  any  other  government." 

It  will  be  observed  that  Admiral  Dewey  only  pledged  their 
good  behavior  ''  under  just  laws."  Was  it  just  toward  them 
for  us  to  depart  in  treaty-making  from  our  established  prece- 
dents of  a  century  ?  Was  it  just  to  pledge  independence  and 
freedom  to  Cuba  and  eternal  colonial  vass  ilage  to  the  Philip- 
pines ?  Was  it  just  to  tender  autonomy  and  self-government 
to  one  and  military  satraps  and  proconsuls  to  the  other  ?  Was 
it  just  to  hold  tlie  promise  of  liberty  to  the  ear,  and  break  it 
to  the  hope?  Was  it  just  to  accept  their  services  in  time  of 
need  and  lose  the  sense  of  gratitude  in  the  hour  of  victory? 

We  are  great  enough  to  be  just,  even  generous,  to  a  weak 
and  struggling  people.  But  no  nation  is  strong  enough  to 
bear  the  burden  of  periidy  and  deceit. 

The  Philippine  government  had  its  commissioners  at  Paris 
during  the  progress  of  the  late  treaty  negotiations.  The 
character  of  these  men  must  not  be  mistaken.  They  Avere 
able,  intelligent,  and  not  unacquainted  with  history  or  the  arts 
of  diplomacy.  Spanish  imperialism  and  Spanish  cruelty  had 
stamped  upon  every  fibre  of  their  natures  a  bitter  hatred  of 
oppression  and  an  intense  love  of  liberty.  An  alien  govern- 
ment at  Madrid,  five  thousand  miles  away,  had  for  centuries 
governed  them  in  a  spirit  of  relentless  tj'raany.  These  people, 
too,  had  come  to  believe  that  ■•  all  men  are  created  equal ; '' 
that  '"governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed  :"  that  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  cast 
off  oppression,  and  "  to  institute  a  new  government,  laying  its 
foundation  on  such  principles  and  organizing  its  powers  in 
such  form  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their 
safety  and  ha2:)piness." 

It  was  the  constant  boast  of  our  treaty  commissioners  at 
Paris  that  these  humble  agents  of  a  people  seeking  only  "  their 
inalienable  rights"  were  never  seen  or  consulted  by  them,  and 
that   their  modest   supj^lications  were  unheard  in  the  council 


20 

chambers,  where  twenty  million  dollars  were  freelj'  given  to 
the  oppressor,  while  to  the  impoverished  victims  was  left  the 
poor  privileg-e  of  worshipping  at  altars  of  religion  alread}^ 
gilded  by  gold  wa-enched  from  their  poverty  and  reeking  with 
the  blood  of  their  people. 

For  ages  they  had  been  plundered  by  an  alien  government 
at  Madrid.  And  now  for  tlie  long  and  uncertain  future  '-the 
civil  rights  and  political  status  of  the  native  inhabitants  .  .  . 
shall  be  determined  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States." 
They  asked  for  bread  and  we  gave  them  a  stone  They  asked 
for  fish  and  we  gave  them  a  serpent. 

Gentlemen,  in  addition  to  the  phraseology  of  the  treat}' 
itself,  I  might  refer  you  to  the  many  speeches  made  in  the 
Senate  by  the  advocates  and  expounders  of  that  treaty,  in 
which  military  imperialism,  in  its  most  oifVusive  fojins,  has 
been  advanced,  not  only  as  a  constitutional  doctrine,  but  as 
the  true  policy  of  onr  nation.  And,  as  an  indication  approving 
the  new  doctrine,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  following 
resokition  passed  by  the  United  States  Senate  since  its  ratifi- 
cation of  the  treaty.  I  know  not  its  purpose.  If  it  be  in- 
tended as  an  exposition  of  the  treaty,  the  ]:)eo2)lo  of  tlie 
Pliili])pine  Islands  are  well  justilied  in  fearing  a  state  of  things 
even  worse  than  war. 

The  resolution  is  as  follows  : 

"  That  by  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Spain 
it  is  not  intended  to  incorporate  the  inhabitants  of  the  Philip- 
pine Islands  into  citizenship  of  the  United  States,  n  >r  is  it 
intended  to  permanently  annex  said  ishmds  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States  ;  but  it  is  tlie  inten- 
tion of  tlie  United  States  to  establish  on  said  islands  a  gov- 
ernment suitable  to  the  wants  ami  conditions  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  said  islands,  to  prepare  them  f.r  local  self-government, 
and  in  due  time  to  make  such  disposition  of  said  islands  as 
will  best  j^romote  the  interests  of'  the  citizens  of  the  United 
/States  and  the  inhabitants  of  said  islands." 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  exercise  by  Congress  of  the 
powers  here  clainjed  would,  in  the  language  'if  the  Su{)r('me 


21 

Court.  •'  be  iucoiisistent  with  the  existence  of  our  Goverumeut 
ill  its  present  form."  The  power,  you  observe,  is  claimed  to 
govern  iudefiuitely,  coupled  with  the  declaratiou  that  the 
territory  shall  never  be  annexed  or  admitted  as  States,  while 
the  Supreme  Court,  in  Murphy  /'.  Ramsey,  114  U.  S.,  has  said 
that  •■  the  power 'of  Congress  over  the  territories  is  limited  by 
the  obvious  purposes  for  wliich  it  was  conferred,  and  those 
purposes  are  satisfied  by  measures  which  prepare  the  people 
to  become  States  in  the  Unioi."  And.  in  Shively  v.  Bowlb}', 
152  U.  S.,  it  is  said  that  territories,  under  our  form  of  govern- 
ment, can  only  "^  be  held  vnth  the  object,  as  soon  as  their  2^02)11- 
lation  and  conditio?)  justify  it,  of  being  adniittea  into  the 
Union  as  States,  ui')On  an  equal  footing  xoith  the  origincd 
States  in  all  respects." 

I  refer  to  this  radical  departure  from  established  construc- 
tion simply  to  show  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  Philippine 
Islands  are  fully  juslilied  in  asking  an  authoritative  expression 
of  our  purposes. 

My  friends,  these  people  are  human  beings.  They  no  doubt 
love  liberty  and  hate  slavery  as  fervently  as  we  do.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  Admiral  Dewey,  they  are  gentle,  docile,  and  kind. 
Their  social  relations  are  marked  by  all  the  affections  and  tender 
regard  for  kindred  and  friends  which  mark  our  own  civilization, 
all  the  lies  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  They  seem  to  have 
patriotism,  too,  which  sweetens  death  in  defence  of  their  father- 
land. And  for  these  reasons  I  have  been  amazed  that,  in  this 
age  of  commissions,  none  was  sent  to  the  Filipinos,  before 
the  commencement  of  hostilities  against  them,  to  teach  them 
the  purposes  and  designs  of  the  American  people.  So  much 
we  have  always  done  for  even  the  most  savage  of  our  Indian 
tribes.  Should  we  do  less  for  our  faithful  allies  who  but 
recently  mingled  their  blood  with  ours  in  the  trenches  of 
Manila  ? 

The  inhabitants  of  Puerto  Rico  and  the  Philippines  should 
have  the  same  right  to  the  protection  of  the  Constitution  which 
we  enjoy.  If  these  people  be  violated  in  life,  liberty,  or  property ; 
if  they  shall  be  robbed  of  property  or  punished  in  person  with- 


22 

out  reg-ard  to  the  sacred  g-uaranties  of  that  Coustitutiou,  and 
without  the  intervention  of  jur}'  trials  ;  if  they  be  plundered 
by  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and.  excises,  in  excess  of  those  levied 
and  collected  in  the  States  themselves,  and  beyond  the  limits 
of  that  uniformity  prescribed  by  the  organic  law  of  the  land  : 
if  soldiers,  in  peace,  be  quartered  upon  them  and  extraordinary 
taxes  be  wrung  from  their  poverty  for  that  purpose,  this  would 
not  be  expansion — that  peaceful  enlargement  of  national  do- 
main by  the  addition  of  willing  States — but  it  would  be  im- 
2)erialls»i,  that  monster  progeny  of  greed  and  violence  which 
always  brings  poverty,  slavery,  and  death.  It  is  but  another 
name  for  tyranny,  resistance  to  which,  in  the  vocabulary  of 
freemen,  is  obedience  to  God. 

I  am  an  expansionist.  I  would  let  the  light  of  our  free  in- 
stitutions so  shine  that  others,  seeing  our  wealth,  our  prosper- 
it}',  and  our  happiness,  would  voluuturily  ask  to  share  with  us 
our  mau}^  blessings.  But  I  am  not  an  imperialist.  God  grant 
that  freedom  shall  ever  follow  the  American  flag.  When  that 
flag  ceases  to  be  the  emblem  of  liberty,  let  it  be  "  hauled 
down."'  I  know  of  but  one  flag,  and  that  is  the  one  which 
proudly  floats  "'  o'er  the  land  of  the  free  and  the  home  of  the 
brave."  It  will  never  float  gracefully  over  a  land  of  slaves. 
Let  us  be  able  to  paraphrase,  in  truth,  those  beautiful  lines 
of  Cowper : 

"Slaves  cannot  breathe  in  America;  if  their  kings 
Receive  our  air,  that  moment  they  are  free  ; 
They  touch  our  country  and  their  shackles  fall." 

My  friends,  in  what  nations  of  Europe  to-day  will  you  find 
the  most  assured  safety  for  person  and  property  ?  In  what 
nations  is  promised  the  greatest  immunity  from  the  ravages 
of  war  ■?  A  moment's  thought  will  point  to  Switzerland,  Bel- 
gium, Denmark,  and  Holland.  Their  strength  consists  in 
their  weakness.  Unable  to  take  the  sword,  they  are  not 
destined  to  fall  by  the  sword.  It  is  the  strong  nations  whose 
soil  is  soon  to  be  drenched  with  the  blood  of  their  citizens. 

The  plundered  spoils  in  Africa  and  the  partition  of  China 
cannot  be   peaceably   adjusted.      For   fifty  years  the   strong 


23 

nations  of  Europe  have  been  preparing  for  the  strife  :  and  the 
first  gun  of  the  most  stupendous  war  known  in  history  maj' 
be  fired  before  the  opening  of  the  20th  century.  What  interest 
have  we  in  this  threatened  conflict  ?  In  the  Language  of  the 
purest  patriot  the  world  lias  produced,  "  Why  quit  our  own 
to  stand  on  foreign  ground  .'  Why,  by  interweaving  our 
destiny  with  that  of  any  part  of  Europe,  entangle  our  peace 
and  prosperity  in  the  toils  of  European  ambition,  rivalship, 
interest,  humor,  and  caprice  1  " 

I  think  it  was  Edmund  Burke  who  said,  "  the  people  never 
give  up  their  liberties  but  under  some  delusion." 

One  of  the  prevalent  delusions  to-day  is,  that  expansion  of 
territory  is  equivalent  to  national  power.  Is  it  not  a  source 
of  weakness  rather  than  of  strength  ?  Such  was  the  experience 
of  Rome,  and  such  has  been  unquestionably  the  experience  of 
Spain.  Another  delusion  is  that  colonies  afford  markets  for 
the  mother  countr3\  Such  was  the  case  when  colonies  were 
ruled  without  regard  to  their  rights,  and  solely  for  purposes 
of  extortion  by  the  dominant  power.  Such  conduct  is  now 
invariably  met  b}'  open  resistance,  and  the  suppression  of 
rebellions  costs  far  more  than  the  profits  of  plunder.  Hence 
has  come  the  new  and  better  doctrine  of  the  "open  door"  to 
commerce.  But  this  means  that  the  owner  or  proprietor  has 
no  privileges  superior  to  those  of  other  nations.  The  owner 
pays  the  expenses  of  administration  while  others  enter  the 
open  door  on  an  equal  footing  with  himself.  I  therefore  see 
no  material  profit  in  the  ownership  of  the  Philippines.  It  is 
said  we  cannot  honorably  return  them  to  Spain.  It  seems,  at 
present,  that  we  are  in  no  good  condition  to  deliver,  and  Spain 
is  impotent'  to  hold  them.  Spain  never  had  them  to  convey, 
and  we  received  the  transfer  possibly  under  the  well-known 
doctrine  of  caveat  emptor.  Spain  had  no  title,  and  the  title 
of  her  vendee  seems  to  have  grown  into  no  better  estate. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  if  we  abandon  them  to  their  fate,  Ger- 
many or  France,  or  somebody  else,  will  take  them.  Perhaps  it 
may  be  well  to  let  them  try  it.  It  will  likely  gorge  their  appe- 
tites for  colonial  expansion.     By  the  time  they  have  swallowed 


24 

and  assimilated  the  Pliilippiues,  smaller  portions  of  China  may 
satisfy  their  imperial  cravings. 

It  is  said  that  our  humanity  and  Christian  spirit  would  re- 
volt against  abandoning  these  poor  creatures  who  have  so  long 
been  the  victims  of  Spauish  cruelty.  The  latest  reports  from 
Manila  seem  to  indicate  that  the  Filipinos  themselves  would 
gladly  release  us  from  any  supposed  obligations  in  this  re- 
spect. And  our  bayonets  and  gunboats  carr}'  to  them  but 
li-ttle  of  Christian  charity. 

It  is  often  triumphantly  asked,  What  would  ycni  do  with  the 
Philippines  ?  Originally,  when  the  Spanish  fleet  w^as  destro3'ed 
at  Manila,  I  should  have  ordered  Admiral  Dewey  to  Cuba, 
that  he  might  assist  in  carrying  out  the  ord<'is  of  Congress  in 
declaring  war, — '•  to  drive  Spain  from  Cuiiaand  Cuban  waters." 
That  was  the  extent  of  the  declaration  of  wm-,  and  everything 
beyond  that  is  tdtfu  oireH. 

Having-  committed  the  blunder  of  leaving  him  in  Asia,  I  would 
now  negotiate  with  the  Filipinos  to  take  Manila  as  a  naval 
station,  and  then  help  them  to  establish  a  republic  of  their 
own,  the  United  States  agree lag  to  aid  them  in  the  good 
work,  and  to  protect  them  from  any  threatened  interference 
with  their  free  institutions,  they  to  return  to  us  that  $2U.000,- 
000  which  Spain  received  from  us  on  a  defective  title. 

True  Wisdom  Forbids  Departure  From  Safe  Precedents. 

Following  the  teachings  of  our  patriotic  ancestors,  a  siug'le 
centuiT  has  sufficed  to  make  us  the  greatest,  the  most  honored, 
the  most  important  nation  of  the  earth. 

A  population  of  three  millions  has  rapidlj'  grown  to  be 
seventy-five  millions.  Individual  poverty  has  been  happily 
sujiplanted  by  all  the  elements  of  personal  comfort.  A  temper- 
ate climate,  combined  with  fertility  of  soil,  has  brought  plent}'', — 
yea,  riches, — to  the  farmer's  home. 

The  manufacturer  has  prospered  until,  after  supplying-  the 
American  demand,  he  ships  from  his  products  a  surplus  of  over 
three  hundred  million  dollars  to  foreiou  markets.     Our  internal 


25 

commerce  exceeds  that  of  all  Europe.  In  aggregate  exports  we 
already  excel  the  most  prosj^erous  nations  of  the  world.  Our 
balances  of  trade  are  now  so  large  as  to  threaten  the  financial 
peace  of  Europe,  and  these  balances  furnish  the  abundant  re- 
sources of  gold  which  supply  the  overflowing  streams  of  our 
commerce  at  home. 

These  are  the  triumphs  of  peace.  All  was  accomplished 
without  an  army  and  without  a  navy.  Trade  makes  friends, 
war  makes  enemies.  We  waged  no  foreign  wars  and  we  had 
no  foreign  enemies.  We  offered  to  all  the  riches  of  our  com- 
merce, and  the  nations  gave  us  the  willing  hand  of  friendshijD 

We  are  now  entering  upon  an  untried  experiment  in  our 
system  of  government.     Why  not  let  well  enough  alone  1 

Imperialism  contains  more  armed  soldiers  than  the  fabled 
wooden  horse  of  Troy.  Imperialism  reverses  the  entire  theory 
of  self-government.  It  discards  the  wisdom  of  our  fathers, 
repudiates,  without  shame,  the  Monroe  doctrin*',  and  joins 
hands  with  the  execrated  Holy  Alliance.  It  rejects  the  civil 
equality  of  men  and  accepts,  without  protest,  the  oppressions 
and  despotism  of  the  16th  century.  Tliis  war  in  the  Philip- 
pines brings  us  back  into  the  shadows  of  the  dark  ages.  It  is 
a  war  for  which  no  justification  can  be  urged.  As  no  reasons 
could  be  assigned  for  its  existence,  Congress  was  ashamed  to 
make  up  any  record  of  its  declaration.  It  has  scarcely  better 
excuse  than  the  wars  of  subjugation  waged  by  Imperial 
Rome,  whose  object  was  to  plunder,  and  enslave  the  weak, 
and  whose  result  was,  in  the  language  of  its  own  historian,  to 
make  a  desert  of  other  lands  and  call  it  peace. 


THIS  IS  A  PHOTOCOPY  REPRODUCTION 


It  is  made  in  compliance  with  copyright  law 
and  produced  on  acid-free  archival 

book  weight  paper 

which  meets  the  requirements  of 

ANSI/NISO  Z39.48-1992 

Permanence  of  Paper  for  Printed  Library  Materials 


Preservation  photocopying 

by 

The  University  of  Connecticut  Libraries 

Preservation  Department 

2001 


7  37 


Q 


University  of 
Connecticut 

Libraries 


391b3027673252 


im^ 


